Hacker News Reader

Comment by djsumdog | Hacker News Reader

Ad hominem. His views of climate change have nothing to do with tragedy of this family court case. Why do you bring it up?

If you want to challenge the story, present other sources with the other view point. Don't go after one messenger, and use prior bad or not-bad acts to cast the journalist in a negative light. That's very not helpful.

Yes yes, a series of bad journalism can show a pattern and that's how prosecutors go after organized crimes and serial killers. But don't pretend there are bias and unbias journalists. Everyone has a bias. Most of what we see is propaganda and not news.

View on HN

> But don't pretend there are bias and unbias journalists.

I really hate to do this, but this one drives me nuts (and I have no idea how people make the mistake): it's biased and unbiased.

When it comes to a reporter summarizing a story, there is a lot of trust involved that they aren't distorting the truth. If they have been historically unreasonable, it is not ad hominem to point that out.

Not believing in climate change is relevant to thinking about whether someone is likely to be a trustworthy source because not believing in c.c. means we should be skeptical of that person's writing and conclusions. It's equivalent to believing the world is 8000 years old, or evolution doesn't exist, or jesus rode on dinosaurs.

It doesn't have anything to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with being educated and drawing reasonable conclusions about the world.

Being a "climate change denier" can mean almost anything today.

Such as that you believe that climate is changing not because of CO2 levels but rather due to other atmospheric gases or pollutants, or the sun's emissions, etc.

Or maybe you believe that the models being used are politically driven (which is a provable fact BTW).

You can still agree that there is a problem, but you just don't agree on the causes 100% or the solutions 100%.

So unless you know the specifics of what this person is not agreeing with you on, it is a meaningless and non-relevant label.

Please prove that the models of client change are used politically. You appear to be trying to dismiss concerns around climate change are some kind of irrelevant politically driven scheme. Asserting that it's a conspiracy, only politically driven requires some evidence. You can't dismiss it just on your whim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com